Ermitano v.

CA

The questioned stipulation in this case, which still requires the cardholder to wait until the credit
card company has notified all its member-establishments, puts the cardholder at the mercy of
the credit card company which may delay indefinitely the notification of its members to minimize
if not to eliminate the possibility of incurring any loss from unauthorized purchases.

Facts:

Petitioner Luis and Manuelita Ermitaño are credit cardholders of private respondent
BPI Express Card Corp. (BECC).

On August 29, 1989, Manuelita's bag was snatched from her as she was shopping at the
Greenbelt Mall in Makati, Metro Manila. Among the items inside the bag was her BECC credit
card. That same night she informed, by telephone, BECC of the loss.

However, when Luis received his monthly billing statement from BECC dated September
20, 1989, the charges included amounts for purchases made on August 30, 1989 through
Manuelita's lost card.

The Ermitanos disclaim responsibility for those charges, which were made after she had
served BECC with notice of the loss of her card. BECC pointed out the stipulation in the
contract of adhesion that in case of loss/theft the cardholder continues to be liable for the
purchases made through the use of the card until after such notice has been given to BECC and
the latter has communicated such loss/theft to its member establishments.

Isssue:

Whether the Ermitanos shall be liable for the unauthorized purchases after giving
notification of such loss/theft to the bank.

Held:

NO. Prompt notice by the cardholder to the credit card company of the loss or theft of his
card should be enough to relieve the former of any liability occasioned by the unauthorized use
of his lost or stolen card.

The questioned stipulation in this case, which still requires the cardholder to wait until
the credit card company has notified all its member-establishments, puts the cardholder at the
mercy of the credit card company which may delay indefinitely the notification of its members to
minimize if not to eliminate the possibility of incurring any loss from unauthorized purchases. Or,
as in this case, the credit card company may for some reason fail to promptly notify its members
through absolutely no fault of the cardholder.

To require the cardholder to still pay for unauthorized purchases after he has given
prompt notice of the loss or theft of his card to the credit card company would simply be unfair
and unjust. The Court cannot give its assent to such a stipulation which could clearly run against
public policy.
Jardenil v. Solas

When a party sues on a written contract and no attempt is made to show any vice
therein, he cannot be allowed to lay any claim more than what its clear stipulations accord. His
omission, to which the law attaches a definite warning as an in the instant case, cannot by the
courts be arbitrarily supplied by what their own notions of justice or equity may dictate.

Facts:

Defendant-appellee agreed to pay 12% interest on the loan of P2,400 only up to the date
of maturity, or until March 31, 1934 in favor of plaintiff as expressly stipulated in their mortgage
deed. However, the contract is silent as to whether after that date, in the event of non-payment,
the debtor would continue to pay interest. Moreover, plaintiff granted an extension of one year
from the maturity date to make payment without any mention as to the interest.

Issue:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest during the grace period.

Held:

NO.

As the contract is clear and unmistakable and the terms employed therein have not been
shown to belie or otherwise fail to express the true intention of the parties and that the deed
has not been assailed on the ground of mutual mistake which would require its reformation,
same should be given its full force and effect.

When a party sues on a written contract and no attempt is made to show any vice
therein, he cannot be allowed to lay any claim more than what its clear stipulations accord. His
omission, to which the law attaches a definite warning as an in the instant case, cannot by the
courts be arbitrarily supplied by what their own notions of justice or equity may dictate.

Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled only to the stipulated interest of 12 per cent on the loan of
P2,400 from November 8, 1932 to March 31, 1934. And it being a fact that extra judicial
demands have been made which we may assume to have been so made on the expiration of
the year of grace, he shall be entitled to legal interest upon the principal and the accrued
interest from April 1, 1935, until full payment.